In addition, This updated doc has been checked with HTML validator and Link Checker tool from W3C.
Because these checking is the mandatory course for W3C official publication.
I will do these checking for API doc as well.
Best regards,
Wonsuk.
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 이원석
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:24 PM
To: Daniel Park; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Cc: Strassner John Charles
Subject: [mawg]updated version of ontology doc
Dear all,
Sorry for a little bit late because of more digging work then I expected ;)
[1] is the updated version of ontology doc.
[3] is the diff version between the result [2] of Vienna f2f meeting and the last one
Please review this doc and if you have any comment, please let us know J
For more detail information, please refer rest of this mail.
Concerning to the open issues for LC [4],
Below is done:
3. You don't define what an ontology is, I wouldn't assume that people actually know. (by John) à Done
4. "defined in this Working Group" The draft shouldn't talk about the WG except in the SotD and possibly in notes and issues; this should probably say "defined in this specification". (by wonsuk) à Done
7. The table in 4.1.2 is really hard to read. Is it necessary to cram all that information so closely together? I think that it would be clearer if the table subsections became simple subsections, and if the content were unfolded for each property, perhaps with a <dl> or something similar. (by Veronique) à done
8. Where does the "ma" prefix come from? It is described later as the "namespace" but it seems to be a prefix instead (and should be defined before being used). I may have missed it but the document does not seem to define a namespace for the vocabulary. Or maybe it's using a different meaning of "namespace", in which case that should be clarified. (by Joakim) à Done
9. ma:identifier and ma:locator
It seems to me that these always contain identical information. Your examples in the API document indicate this, too. So, it might make sense to remove ma:identifier or retarget it towards giving it something more like a XML ID field than a URL. At minimum, your example in the API doc should be an example for when the value for these two fields is different. (by wonsuk) à Done
11. updating the reference for making clear the normative and non-normative(by wonsuk) à Done
12. add ogg mapping table to the mapping table (refer the action item)(by Thierry) à Done
Below is still open issues
1. Your CSS reduces the margins between <p> elements throughout the document, which makes it harder to read. In general, please don't override very generic core styles from W3C as it defeats the purpose of having a common style. (by wonsuk)
à It’s not a big deal. It’s just related with the stype of <p>. but when I try to change this, It doesn’t work correctly. Can anyone help me?
2. You have definitions but aren't using <dfn>, it would be nice. (I will be handled later.)
à We don’t need to care this issue. So just skip.
5. Note that as per the Manual of Style it is usually recommended to use title case for titles. (by wonsuk)
à @John: If you don’t mind, when you review the ontology doc could you take care of this work ?
6. Have you considered not using XML Schema for the types and instead relying on the more commonly used and less scary definitions provided by HTML5? I believe that given the target audience (as I understand it) it would be more useful. See http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastructure.html#common-microsyntaxes. Also note that you say your URI type is RFC3986/7 but reference XML Schema 1.0 part 2 which says anyURI is from RFC2396/2732. If you plan on keeping the reference to XML Schema, I would recommend upgrading to 1.1, even though it is still in LC. (by Florian)
à It’s already done?
10. Another major issue is that the specification as currently written has no discussion of conformance. What does it mean to implement this specification? What does it mean to conform to it? Some parts of it are described as normative, but there isn't a single normative assertion in it (no "must", a few "should", a couple "recommended" but none of them with a clear product to apply to). I understand that it may be difficult to write concrete tests for an ontology since it does "do" anything, but I still think that there could be clearly defined conformance requirements on products that expose this data model, e.g. that they must expose this or that property as a list of pairs of foo,bar, etc. The SotD states that this document is on Recommendation track, but it reads much like a Note (which might be fine as well, that's up to you). (by John)
à So far John is waiting for updated ontology doc from me and he will do this work with the updated doc. @John: Thanks in advance ;)
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
[2] http://tinyurl.com/2d793w6
[3] http://tinyurl.com/2er68a5
[4] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Issues_for_LC
Best regards,
Wonsuk.